THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN ANCHOR: The Boston bombing case turns the corner from the hot pursuit of suspects to the deliberative pursuit of answers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY (voice-over): Today, investigators dig for the details behind the chaos, while Boston fires it up and begins moving on.

Boston strong with Massachusetts senator, Mo Cowan, then with new details come concern that feds missed an early warning about one of the suspects. A conversation with the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Michael McCaul.

Senators Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer on the different between a terrorist and a criminal and whether Boston changes Washington's immigration debate.

Then, when the unimaginable becomes real.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Why did young men who grew up and studied here as part of our communities and our country resort to such violence? How did they plan and carry out these attacks and did they receive any help?

CROWLEY: Our all-star panel on what we know about the suspects and what it tells us about their mission.

I'm Candy Crowley. And this is STATE OF THE UNION.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY (on-camera): Federal terrorism charges could be filed as early as today against the second Boston marathon bombing suspect. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev remains hospitalized this morning with injuries including one to his throat. The "New York Times" is reporting that the Department of Homeland Security decided in recent months to delay action on an application for citizenship from the other suspected bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

A routine background check revealed he was interviewed by the FBI in 2011 at the request of the Russian government, which suspected that the older brother had ties to Chechen terrorist. He was killed following a shootout with police early Friday morning in Boston. CNN's latest reporting shows 57 victims remain hospitalized as a result of the Boston bombings. That includes three in critical condition.

Joining me now is Massachusetts senator, William, his friends call him Mo Cowan. Thank you so much, senator, for being with us this morning out of Boston. I want to ask you what you know about the status of the investigation. Has anything new turned up?

COWAN: Well, good morning, Candy. Thanks for having me here. And before I respond, I just want to take this opportunity to once again thank all the first responders who came to the scene on Monday and all the investigative personnel who spent all week working hard to identify and capture the suspects we believe to be responsible for this heinous crime committed on marathon Monday.

In terms of the investigation itself, there's not much new to report beyond what we are hearing. The investigation continues obviously as to the whys and hows of the circumstance. The second offender who was in the hospital is not yet able to communicate. That's to the best of our understanding.

That may be due to some of the injuries he suffered. We're trying to understand how he suffered those injuries and look forward to communicating with him to find out exactly what happened here and what the motivations were.

CROWLEY: Can we surmise at this point that you still believe you have the perpetrators of the attack at the marathon and that there is no further danger out there, no other people that, at this moment, pose a danger to American soil connected to this?

COWAN: Well, we are -- I think the law enforcement personnel, the investigators are confident that the 19-year-old offender who's in the hospital was involved with the incidents on Monday. As to whether or not there may be others involved, as I understand it, we don't think there may be others at this point. But the investigators as they should are continuing to look into the matter.

And the authorities including myself are asking everyone to be vigilant but not fearful. To live our lives but keep our eyes open. To make sure if we see or hear of unusual activity to bring it forward. But the investigation continues, the arrest of this offender is a significant step, but we recognize we have a long way to go yet, Candy.

CROWLEY: Senator, that's the challenge, isn't it, to be not fearful but vigilant. Sometimes the two of those are a bit mutually exclusive. How do you envision that future big events in Boston, in fact, let's just take the Boston marathon next year, has this not fundamentally changed the way you approach large events in that city or any other city?

COWAN: Well, any time you have an event like this, Candy, you need to learn from it. There's much more investigative work yet to do to understand how Monday's events came to be, how these two individuals came to devise the explosive devices, what motivated them? And I'm sure the Boston police and the federal authorities and others in preparation for next marathon which we expect to be bigger and better than it's ever been before will take those lessons into mind to make sure the route is as secure as it can be.

The reality is you can't prevent these things in every circumstance, but you can prepare as well as you can humanly possible to try to limit the possibility that this could happen. I am confident that our law enforcement personnel will do that over the coming weeks and months. And it's an abject lesson for everyone in the nation that we have to be vigilant. If you see something, say something.

And in this case, you know, in the aftermath of the explosions, we actually had citizens who saw something, who brought that information forward and allowed us to bring these two individuals into custody, at least in the case of the second offender and identified them right away.

CROWLEY: Senator, before being appointed senator, you were Governor Patrick's chief of staff. You were, in fact, his chief legal counsel. So, I want you to take a legal look at what's going to happen next.

COWAN: Sure.

CROWLEY: Should this suspect be tried on state murder charges? Should he be tried on federal terror charges? And I assume you want that trial wherever it is -- or whatever it is in Massachusetts?

COWAN: Yes. The debate over whether this individual will be tried in the civil courts or military tribunals, I know it's already started, Candy. The reality here is it's complicated because we have an individual, who by all account, was naturalized as citizen just a few months ago on September 11th ironically. And the law around treating U.S. citizens as military combatants is not, in fact, clear.

The reality is the last time I think we did this was in the Jose Padilla case and after some litigation, ultimately, the Bush administration decided to try him in a civil proceedings -- civil courts, I should say, and convictions were brought forward. I have tremendous faith in our justice system, in this justice department, should they decide to bring him to trial in the traditional criminal proceedings.

And when we're dealing with a U.S. citizen, even one who was committed these heinous acts, we must be mindful of the constitution and the constitutional prerogatives that are available in those circumstances. That debate will continue no doubt, but I do believe that we can bring him to justice in our court system.

CROWLEY: Senator, quickly if I could. Massachusetts does not have the death penalty. Do you think the death penalty at the federal level should be open should this suspect be found guilty of terrorism?

COWAN: Well, the Department of Justice, and particularly, Attorney General Holder will ultimately make that decision as to what charges are brought forward and what particular punishment they may seek for this. And so, I'm going to give them the room and the space.

CROWLEY: What do you think?

COWAN: You are correct here. At the state level of Massachusetts, we don't have the death penalty. I am not personally a proponent of the death penalty. I think that -- but I'll leave it to Attorney General Holder to decide ultimately what needs to be done here. And I'll support that.

CROWLEY: OK. Senator Cowan, thanks for your time this morning. I appreciate it.

When we return, two members of Congress are demanding answers from federal law enforcement officials saying their counterterrorism efforts might not be working as well as we'd like. We'll talk with one of them, House Homeland Security chairman, Michael McCaul.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CROWLEY: Joining me now, House Homeland security chairman, Michael McCaul. Thank you for being here this morning. I want to talk first about this letter that you have written to the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI as well as to James clapper, head of the DNI.

So, in this letter, you write and say, "We want all the information you have. And here's a portion of that."

You're talking about the older brother, the now deceased suspect appears to be the fifth person since September 11, 2001, to participate in terrorist attacks despite being under investigation by the FBI, in addition to Anwar al-Awlaki, David Headley, Carlos Bledsoe and Nidal Hasan. In addition, Farooq Abdul Mutallab attempted a terror attack despite being identified to the CIA as a potential terrorist.

Five of these six intelligence failures have taken place since 2009. They raise the most serious questions about the efficacy of federal counterterrorism efforts. You seem to already feel that something was missed here.

MCCAUL: Well, let me say first that, you know, as a federal prosecutor and work with the FBI, the job the FBI, joint terrorism task force, Boston police, Watertown police did a magnificent job bringing this horrible nightmare to a successful ending in less than a week. So, I really commend what they did.

My job and my obligation as chairman of homeland security is to review these matters to see what if anything went wrong and how can we prevent that in the future.

CROWLEY: And what we know so far and what CNN and others have confirmed is that this second suspect, the older brother was, in fact, questioned by the FBI because Russia says he may have ties to an Islamist terrorist group.

MCCAUL: Right. My understanding is Russian intelligence service contacted the FBI and said you have an individual that has potential ties to extremism. That he was interviewed by the FBI in 2011 and let go. And after that time is what's very interesting is that the older brother travels back to Russia. His father lives in the Chechen region. He spends six months there. He comes back.

One of the first things he does is puts up a YouTube website throwing out a lot of jihadist rhetoric. Clearly, something happened in my judgment in that six-month timeframe. He radicalized at some point in time. Where was that and how did that happen? I'm very concerned. That six months is very important. So, why is the FBI interview important?

Because if he was on the radar and they let him go, he's on the Russians radar, why wasn't a flag put on him, some sort of customs flag? I've done this before. You put a customs flag up on the individual coming in and out. And I'd like to know what intelligence Russia has on him as well. I would suspect that they may have monitored him when he was in Russia.

CROWLEY: Let me just be devil's advocate here and that is that there are rules and it's a free country and this was a man with papers. He was a legalized permanent. He was a permanent resident of the U.S. They get a request from Russian intelligence to check out this guy. We think that he has, you know, ties with terrorism. They look at him and they find no ties to terrorism and no criminal activity. Do you put a flag next to somebody that you find nothing about?

MCCAUL: Well, it's important enough to have a foreign government tie him to extremism. I'm not -- again, I always give the FBI the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure they interviewed him. You can't detain all lawful persons in the United States. This man is now -- he's a U.S. citizen -- or not -- he's not a U.S. citizen, his brother is. He actually applied for citizenship and the Department of Homeland Security put that on hold based upon his FBI interview.

So, there were concerns about this individual, and yet, when he travels abroad and gets to a very dangerous part of the world, nothing seems to be done. Why is Chechnya important? I think the American people need to understand this. The Chechen rebels are some of the fiercest jihadist warriors out there.

CROWLEY: They're angry with Russia.

MCCAUL: They're angry with Russia but they have also made an alliance with al Qaeda. They have to understand that they're worked with al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan. One of my constituent's sons was killed in Iraq by nine Chechen rebels. So, they're in the fight. And so, he goes over there, the tools of trade of warfare for al Qaeda are precisely the devices that he built, this cooker pressure device, you know, explosive device.

You know, there are reports that they had suicide vests on. You don't learn that overnight. I personally believe that this man received training when he was over there and he radicalized from 2010 to the present. And then, nine months after he comes back from the Chechnya region, he pulls off the largest terror attack since 9/11.

CROWLEY: So, you see -- there is a difference between being influence by al Qaeda or other terrorist groups and getting help and assistance from them. You think it's the latter.

MCCAUL: I think it's very probable that when he's in the region, that's a very dangerous region that they're known for his tactics that he possibly could have been trained at that point. I believe he was already radicalizing. I'm questioning what the father's role is. The fathers always play a heavy role, the father's part of this Chechen revolution.

So, what role did he play there? But when he comes back, he pulls his brother into this plot. I think the larger question right now if I'm U.S. attorney is how is -- is there any -- is there more to this cell? Is it just these two or cast a wider net to see if anyone else is out there that may be tied to the cell in the United States? I think they're probably --

CROWLEY: Other potential bombers you're talking about, not people that are in the --

MCCAUL: Well, people who may have plotted and conspired and prepared in this attack. I do believe that overseas we will hopefully find at some point in time that the training was provided to him over there, but I think as it pertains to the homeland, the biggest concern is what do we have inside this country to protect American lives.

CROWLEY: When we return, closing a sad chapter in Boston and looking for answers to prevent the next tragedy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CROWLEY: In a week when two terrorists toting bombs and guns turned Boston's streets into chaos, the U.S. Senate coincidentally dealt with bills that touch on both issues. Senators rejected a bipartisan gun control bill, a huge defeat for the president, and at about the same time a bipartisan group of eight senators unveiled their immigration reform bill with a certain degree of optimism.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: We know Congress is broken. This is an effort by four Democrats and four Republicans to prove to you and the rest of the members of the Senate, and eventually, the house it doesn't have to stay broken.

SCHUMER: I am convinced this issue will not fall victim to the usual partisan gridlock.

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY, (R) IOWA: How can individuals evade authority and plan such attacks on our soil? How can we beef up security checks on people who wish to enter the United States? How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws including this new bill before us?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY: Two authors of that immigration bill, Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham are next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CROWLEY: I am joined by Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, and South Carolina Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, with whom we just mentioned cooperated and came up recently with a bipartisan immigration bill. I want to get to that as well the effect of Boston on that discussion.

But let me first ask you, you heard Congressman McCaul written a letter to some of the feds saying I wanted to know what you knew about this older suspect. It seems that, in fact, this is a man who did come to the attention of the FBI, to the attention of intelligence operatives here in the U.S. but was cleared and sort of sent on his way. Do either one of you see anything of what you know so far that alarms you about a suspect sort of appeared on the radar and went away?

SCHUMER: Well, I wouldn't say alarm, Candy, but there's certainly a lot of questions. First, let me say I have a lot of faith in the FBI and I wouldn't jump to conclusions, but there are a lot of questions that had to be answered. This man was pointed out by a foreign government to be dangerous. He was interviewed by the FBI once. What did they find out? What did they miss? Then, he went to Russia and then Chechnya.

Why wasn't he interviewed when he came back either at the airport when he was returning or later? And what happened in Chechnya that may have radicalized him? And third, there were things on his website that indicated that he had been radicalized certainly when a foreign government points out that something is wrong or something might be wrong, he ought to be interviewed again.

So, again, while the FBI's done a very good job over the last ten years, I certainly think there are questions that have to be answered. CROWLEY: And Senator Graham, on the other hand, if you don't find anything about someone and he is a permanent resident, do you just want to put a red flag on him forever?

GRAHAM: No. Once you're brought to attention by a foreign government, I think you should have a red flag put then to be dropped later. The ball is dropped in one of two ways. The FBI missed a lot of things as one potential answer our laws do not allow the FBI to follow-up in a sound solid way. There was a lot to be learned from this guy.

He was on websites talking about killing Americans. He went overseas as Chuck indicated. He was clearly talking about radical ideas. He was visiting radical areas. And the fact that we could not track him has to be fixed. It's people like this that you don't want to let out of your sight and this was a mistake. I don't know if our laws are insufficient or the FBI failed, but we're at war with radical Islamists and we need to up our game.

CROWLEY: While I have you here more on the subject of terrorism versus criminals, Senator Graham, you've been very vocal about wanting the remaining suspect who's still alive to be treated as a terrorist rather than a criminal. I think this argument is lost on most people.

GRAHAM: He's both.

CROWLEY: Of course he's both.

GRAHAM: Right.

CROWLEY: There's obviously some legal thing going on. Could you unlegalize it for me and tell me why it's so important?

GRAHAM: Sure. OK. I think most Americans want two things to happen here, that he be brought to justice. I hope he's brought to trial in federal court. He will get a fair trial. The public defender who is assigned to him should vigorously defend this young man because he or she will be helping America. That's what we do in America. He'll get all the rights associated with a federal court trial. He's an American citizen. I'm all for that, but most Americans want to find out what he knew, who he associated with, does he know about terrorist organizations within or without the country or trying to hurt us? Does he know anything about a future attack? That comes from the law of war questioning.

Two things should happen. When the public safety exception expires and it will here soon, this man in my view should be designated as a potential enemy combatant and we should be allowed to question him for intelligence gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist that he has knowledge of. And that evidence cannot be used against him in trial. That evidence is used to protect us as a nation.

Any time we question him about his guilt or innocence, he's entitled to his Miranda rights and a lawyer. But we have the right under our law -- I've been a military lawyer for 30 years, to gather intelligence from enemy combatants. And a citizen can be an enemy combatant. He is not eligible for military commission trial. I wrote the military commission in 2009. He cannot go to military commission.

CROWLEY: So it's a civil trial no matter what?

(CROSSTALK)

GRAHAM: As an American citizen.

CROWLEY: Right. So let me...

GRAHAM: In my view a civil trial, it should be a federal trial.

CROWLEY: Right. And Senator Schumer, I know you agree this should go to a federal court. I want to quick read you something that one of your colleagues said. This is from Senator Carl Levin, you know, he's the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. And in response to Senator Graham and others saying this man needs to be treated as a terrorist, this is what Senator Levin said, "I am not aware of any evidence so far that the Boston suspect is part of any organized group let alone Al Qaeda, the Taliban or one of their affiliates. In the absence of such evidence I know of no legal basis for his detention as an enemy combatant. To hold the suspect as an enemy combatant under these circumstances would be contrary to our laws and may even jeopardize our efforts to prosecute him for his crimes." Where do you stand on this, Senator Schumer?

SCHUMER: Well, I think that the good news is we don't need enemy combatant to get all the information we need out of him. Number one, the court, the one court that has ruled has allowed a lot of flexibility in the public safety exception before you Mirandize somebody. But second, at any time what's called a HIG, a high value interrogation group composed of the FBI, CIA and anyone else can question him without a lawyer in a secured situation and find out whatever they need. That can't as Lindsey said be used against him in a trial, but there's plenty of evidence. They don't need his confession to get him into trial. So I don't think we have to cross the line and say he should be an enemy combatant which could be challenged in court. One circuit is ruled one way, one circuit has ruled another way.

CROWLEY: Senator, the death penalty.

GRAHAM: Candy, could I comment on that?

CROWLEY: Of course, go ahead sir.

GRAHAM: Can I comment on that? This is important. Right now it's too early to determine if he has Al Qaeda connections or falls in enemy combatant definition under our laws. We won't know that by Monday or Tuesday. What I'm suggesting there's ample evidence suggests this man was a radical Islamist and that he and his brother had ties to overseas organizations. We should reserve the right after the public safety exception expires to look at him as an enemy combatant, continue to collect evidence. And if we find evidence, go to him as Chuck said without a lawyer present to gather intelligence. None of it can be used against him in court, but it could be used to protect Boston, New York and the rest of the country from a future attack. It is too early to make this determination. Don't put it in. Don't take it off the table. That's all I'm saying.

CROWLEY: Senator Schumer, I want to move along because I do want to ask you about immigration and that debate. Let me first ask you about the death penalty. Massachusetts as you know is a non-death penalty state, as many states are. Where do you stand on that and this suspect should he be found guilty?

SCHUMER: Yes. Well, the federal law allows the death penalty. I wrote the law in 1994 when I was head of the crime subcommittee in the House. This is just the kind of case that it should be applied to. In fact, the only other time it's been used since '94 is on Timothy McVeigh. And given the facts that I've seen it would be appropriate to use the death penalty in this case and I would hope they would apply it in federal court.

CROWLEY: OK. So let me move you both onto immigration. With the one big picture question to you both and that is do you see anything -- we have one suspect now deceased older brother who was a permanent resident. We have another who is a naturalized citizen as of last year. Do you see anything in the legal immigration system that you now want to go back and say we need to fix this or that and include it in our bill, Senator Graham, you first?

GRAHAM: Well, I want to know how the FBI or the system dropped the ball when he was identified as a potential terrorist. But in terms of immigration, I think now is the time to bring all the 11 million out of the shadows and find out who they are. Most of them are here to work, but we may find some terrorists in our midst who have been hiding in the shadows. When it comes to the entry/exit visa system. The 19 hijackers were all students who overstayed their visas and the system didn't capture that. We're going to fix that. In our bill when you come into the country, it goes into the system. And when your time to leave the country expires and you haven't left, law enforcement is notified. So we are addressing a broken immigration system. What happened in Boston and international terrorism I think should urge us to act quicker, not slower when it comes to getting the 11 million identified.

CROWLEY: Senator Schumer, I want you to answer this.

SCHUMER: I agree with Lindsey. Certainly keeping the status quo is not a very good argument given what happened. Let me say a couple of things. Our law toughens things up as Lindsey mentioned making the 11 million register, having a system when you come in on a visa they know when you're supposed to leave and track you down if you don't. And in fact asylum, which the Tsarnaev family came here on was greatly toughened up a few years after. They might not have gotten asylum under the present law.

And I want to say this, Candy, there are some, some on the hard right, some otherwise, who oppose our immigration bill from the get- go, and they're using this as an excuse. We are not going to let them do that. If they have a reason, a suggestion as to how to change it based on what happened in Boston, we'll certainly be open to it. But we're not going to let them use what happened in Boston as an excuse because our law toughens things up.

CROWLEY: Do either one of you just as a last question sense that there will be an attempt to slow walk this now as a result of Boston?

SCHUMER: Well, I would say --

GRAHAM: I don't know, Candy. I know -- go ahead.

SCHUMER: Go ahead, Lindsey.

GRAHAM: I know we've been dealing with this since 2005, 2006, 2007. I've been dealing with this for almost eight years now. And we have got to stop talking about a broken immigration and fix it. We have a very good solution. It can be amended, it can be debated, you can vote against it or for it, but this is no excuse to stop immigration reform, to secure our borders, control who comes and gets a job and create order out of chaos. We need to move on.

CROWLEY: Senator Schumer, last word.

SCHUMER: I would agree with Lindsey. We have ample opportunity for people to amend our bill. First it's online now. It's going to be online for three weeks before we even get to the Judiciary Committee mark. There anyone including two of the leading opponents of immigration reform, Senator Sessions and Grassley, both of whom have said this is a reason to slow it down can make any amendments they want. And then we go to the floor any one of the hundred senators could propose amendments. To not do it or to say do it six months from now is an excuse. There's ample opportunity to amend the bill if people see anything that they'd want to toughen up even further than what we have done.

CROWLEY: Senator Schumer, Senator Graham, thank you so much for being with us today.

SCHUMER: Thank you.

GRAHAM: Thank you.

CROWLEY: When we return, questioning the suspect, looking for answers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: We will determine what happened. We will investigate any association that these terrorists may have had. And we'll continue to do whatever we have to do to keep our people safe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CROWLEY: Joining me around the table, former director of national intelligence, John Negroponte. Baltimore police chief Jim Johnson, and former FBI profiler Candice DeLong. Thank you all for bringing your expertise around the table.

I want to start and ask all of you sort of a jump ball, which is over the week of information coming from wherever you get it, as well as from the television, the Internet, what piece of information stuck out to you that you thought follow that or oh, that's interesting?

JOHN NEGROPONTE, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: To me it is the Russia connection, if there is any it has to be explored more deeply.

CROWLEY: We're going to come back to that and get your thoughts on it.

JIM JOHNSON, FORMER BALTIMORE POLICE CHIEF: Well, certainly technology, its role in helping us to identify the suspect in this case, law enforcement and the ability to use technology to help prevent crime and certainly help identify suspect after it is committed.

CROWLEY: Right, and I want to see if there are any down sides to that, too. Another subject we will get to. What did you think whoa, that's so telling?

CANDICE DELONG, FORMER FBI PROFILER: For me, it was that they didn't try to leave town as far as we know. There was 72 hours they could have been gone without even getting on a plane. Public rail, car, but they stuck around. Yet they didn't wear suicide bombs. They did not plan on dying during the event.

CROWLEY: Right.

DELONG: As a profiler, I'm asking myself why? Did they think they were going to get away with this? Or was --

CROWLEY: Or was the arsenal that was still in their apartment where they apparently made these bombs, does that tell you they had other ventures they were heading out to?

DELONG: Well, I think the fact that they stuck around is significant.

CROWLEY: Do you think the arsenal that was still there tells you they had not finished what they were started out to do?

JOHNSON: I certainly do. And certainly the weapons they possessed, the handguns and rifles that are being reported certainly indicate that these individuals had intent to further their activity.

CROWLEY: John, let me talk about the Russian angle and Chechen, and let me start off this way. I always thought the U.S., while it certainly does not condone the Chechen terrorists who kill babies and let's face it, are pretty horrible people. But that the idea that Chechens being oppressed by the Russian government, that the U.S. was sort of pro-Chechen. What is the connection here that you see?

NEGROPONTE: Look, first of all, let me hasten to add at the moment, this looks to me like a case of homegrown terrorism with a twist. Not unlike some of the other similar instances --

CROWLEY: You mean sort of like cells.

NEGROPONTE: Whether it was Manhattan, Times Square or the -- any other similar instances. In the UK, you have had some cases like that with Pakistani first generation. People have gone back to their country.

But I think they did come under some kind of an influence of radicalism. And I think with these trips back to Russia and the fact that the family, the parents moved back to Russia and the fact the Russians gave us this tip, if you will, suggests to me that that element has to be explored further, what actually transpired.

CROWLEY: How in particularly did the older one of the suspects, the other brother become radicalized? You can self-radicalize, you can certainly use the Internet, you can use trips -- because there are elements of al Qaeda in that area of Russia.

NEGROPONTE: Absolutely. But it is not only how he became radicalized but was there somebody who was actually instructing this person to do what he did? Or did he get the training and came back of his own volition and carry these things out on his own?

CROWLEY: And what's your guess here about that? Because I heard a lot of people say we have had some attempts at things blowing up and they have always been kind of failures. The airplane over Chicago, guy tried to light his shoe on fire. The underwear bombing, the guy in Times Square. And yet these guys really pulled it off. That suggests to some people that they got some training. That you can't do that off the Internet.

DELONG: Well, actually, al Qaeda did publish how to make a pressure cooker bomb in their magazine and put it on the Internet a year ago.

CROWLEY: Don't you have to test it? I mean, do you think that requires some skill or really -- I could sit down, look at that and build one?

JOHNSON: Well, I certainly think sadly, information to develop these devices are available. However, I do believe that we will learn, as we continue to investigate, attempts were made to probably test and plan out. Law enforcement did an excellent job in this case. Certainly after the fact of going in and certainly detecting the suspects in this case. And I really commend the authorities of New England. What a fabulous job they did.

But I think we need now to sit back and look at how we could have prevented this and hopefully save lives in the future.

CROWLEY: I want to ask you all to sit tight here. We will be back right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CROWLEY: We are back with John Negroponte, Jim Johnson, and Candice Delong. Now with us, CNN law enforcement analyst Tom Fuentes. He's also former assistant director of the FBI, which makes you perfect for this next question. You have seen now -- we know the FBI was alerted by Russia, who said we think this guy might be a terrorist. Check in to him, and they did. There was a conversation of some sort with the now dead older brother.

Now, we are hearing what happened here? Why didn't they red flag him? Now this guys guy starts putting -- there is some terrorist information on his Web site. He went to Russia for six months and I think Lindsey Graham, quote was, "somebody dropped the ball here." Either the rules and regulations are wrong, or the FBI missed it.

TOM FUENTES, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, I think it will have to be determined about where this fits in. We don't have all of the facts in yet. From my last five years in the FBI, I ran the division that handled these requests, oversaw the FBI's legal attache program with offices around the world, 76 offices, including Moscow since 1994. And the request would either come from the security service or the MVD, their police service, to the legal attaches in Moscow. They would forward it to my staff, my former staff, I should say, at FBI headquarter. And they would coordinate field office investigation in response to request, which in this case to the Boston division and then coordinate the response.

So, based on the information that's received and the thousands of these that happened, then the investigation occurs in Boston to try to find the facts of it. The results are then sent back through the legal attache --

CROWLEY: How many of thse would you say you got?

FUENTES: Thousands. Ten of thousands.

CROWLEY: In a year?

FUENTES: Well, not necessarily from Russia, but the FBI has to triage. I am guessing from recollection -- I haven't heard specific numbers, but ballpark 50,000 requests for an investigation like that.

So you triage. If you are getting this from a hot place like Afghanistan or the tribal area of Pakistan or places where we have had specific training camps and people deployed on purpose to come and attack us, then that is the highest priority. And even there, many of the people that go back and forth are visiting family. I mean, they are not always going back to be trained to be terrorists or always going back for refresher courses on terrorism.

In the case of Russia, yes, they have been fighting Chechen militants since the early 90s, since the Soviet Union collapsed and the people of Chechnya thought they should be an independent country because they are predominantly Muslim. They feel persecuted by Russia.

CROWLEY: So Russians kind of had a dog in the hunt. FUENTES: Well, that's been an ongoing fight, but it's been localized. The attacks by the Chechens have been against Russia. They have yet - I don't recall a case, and I may be wrong here, but I don't recall a case where we heard of a Chechen being trained in Chechnya or in that region, the caucus' region of southwest Russia -- to come to attack the U.S. It has either been against Russia.

Also if I could add the affiliation with al Qaeda -- al Qaeda kind of jumped op their bandwagon when they were fighting with the Russians -

CROWLEY: The Chechen terrorists -

FUENTES: Exactly -- through the 90s, al Qaeda decided this was a good training ground. They sent people there just to learn how to shoot and build bombs and do all that. It wasn't necessarily that they had a strong -

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY: Let me -- we have about three-and-a-half minutes left. I have so much expertise here. I want to try to push you to next week from your perspectives or former perspectives. If you are a profiler, is your job done at this point, or now are you -- what is happening?

DELONG: At this point, it is all about personality assessment and behavior analysis. What did they do -- well, of course what are they all about themselves? But what did they do before the incident? What did they do immediately after the incident, what we call post-defense behavior. And we get as much as we can. Also, we will be talking to all kinds of associates close and far, people that knew them. Putting it all together and comparing it to other terrorists, and keeping it in the bank for future events.

CROWLEY: Probably helps with questioning, as well.

DELONG: It does.

CROWLEY: And Chief, you are looking at Baltimore off the experience that Boston's had. You have big events up there. If nothing else, you've got the Ravens. You've got all kinds of sports teams. Do you now do something differently?

JOHNSON: Well, certainly actionable intelligence that local and federal authorities can use to help develop their security plans. We've done a great job for many years preventing such attacks.

However, we need to take a look at technology and make reasonable decisions. As citizens, are we willing to open our bags and our parcels for check, for example. And certainly we have seen how technology has helped to detect these criminals, but what can we do with it to prevent it?

CROWLEY: It is interesting. In some ways, you hear law enforcement folks also saying it hindered it a little bit because when you are in the middle of an operation and someone is tweeting from their bedroom window as they watch you, and if the suspect has that information as well, it can also be of harm. But it proved to be a great asset, social media, this time around.

John, let me ask you, where does this go from an intelligence point of view? Are there people in Russia in territories that we can't pronounce and have never heard of? What's going on?

NEGROPONTE: Well, I think several things. First of all, it is obviously critical that the younger brother be interviewed, and everybody will be waiting to see what that produces. Presumably a lot of evidence has been gathered in terms of the apartment that they lived in and so on and so forth. I think reconstructing perhaps a lot of the phone calls that have happened and electronic records and so forth, which now they can go back into. You are not going to capture phone conversations themselves, but at least you may find destinations and provide some interesting international linkages.

And then lastly, I think we have to work closely with the Russians on this. What did they know? I got the impression that perhaps the first time around, we didn't plum as deeply into this as we might have been able to, and I think this is a good opportunity to go back and see what we can find out the second time around.

CROWLEY: You have about 30, 40 seconds to tell me, what is the FBI's biggest task next week?

FUENTES: I think the task will be to determine whether they had connections, were they deployed by a bigger group, and are there other terrorists in the United States? Are there other explosive devices hidden somewhere, or booby traps created, a cache of weapons? That'll be the task.

CROWLEY: OK. Thank you all so for coming and adding to our knowledge of this. We appreciate it.

And thank you all for watching STATE OF THE UNION. I'm Candy Crowley in Washington. Head to CNN.com/sotu for analysis and extras. And if you missed any part of today's show, find us on iTunes; just search State of the Union.